Misplaced Pages

Oh, and let's not forget ...

... that you are indeed a Fucking Genius. "Die Siedlungsnamen des Innviertels als lauthistorische Quellen", indeed! We should all study that important work more often. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a good Fucking source, isn't it? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald and evidentiary value of blogs

Hello, ChrisO. In deleting my edit of the Glenn Greenwald page where I added info about sockpuppetry allegations, you remarked "blogs are not reliable sources for such accusations." The blog posts to which I linked contained well-documented and detailed technical and textual analyses that more than met the standard of "preponderance of the evidence." What led you to the conclusion that those posts are unreliable? Respectfully, The Puddle Pirate 00:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puddlepirate (talk • contribs)

I suggest you read Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, which tells you what sources you can use. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Heinz-Josef Große

Inner German Border

Hey there! Was looking through the Inner German Border FA (which, by the way, is an amazing article) and saw that an IP has added a lot of new stuff, included a partially cited section on the border at the river Elbe. I think you might want to take a look at it, since the citation is to a primary source and not quite properly formatted. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, will do. Thanks for the heads-up! -- ChrisO (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

CO2 Emisions

There are no figures for Gibraltar CO2 emissions, the study simply recorded imports of oil which in the case of Gibraltar are re-exported as bunkers for ships. I tried to include the explanation in the Spanish wikipedia but Ecemaml removed it - take a look at the history there. --Gibnews (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Ctesiphon

Ignoring the silliness, it needs work. I don't have time but would you like a copy of Notes on Julian's Persian Expedition (363) Author(s): R. T. Ridley Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 22, No. 2 (2nd Qtr., 1973), pp. 317-330? The article seems too simple to me. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the article looks most unsatisfactory in its current state. I'd be happy to have a look at the notes you mention - any chance of sending over a scanned copy? (You have my e-mail address, I think.) -- ChrisO (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Trebuchet.jpg

Hi, can you confirm that you've released the aboce image under a creative commons license? If you have, could you leave a noe on the image's description page? Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, done. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Phil Jones

Chris, yes there is such an article, I clicked on it and it worked correctly. Flegelpuss (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Northern Heights

Please be kind enough to say (here) if you are prepared to give permission to use your Northern Heights drawing in the following graphic, which may be used on a blog and as an advert in a local paper. http://i46.tinypic.com/rkqarn.jpg

There is no feasible room to add a credit, as you can see.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.151.102 (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

{{user NPOV}}

Hey does that {{user NPOV}} on your user page apply to global warming issues? Just wondering... Ling.Nut (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, but I have a low tolerance threshold for the kind of shameless idiocity that is going on in that article. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It will sort itself out in time. Meanwhile, quite frankly , you look very very much like a POV warrior. Just saying. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The conduct of a number of editors on that article is some of the most appalling I've seen in a long time on Misplaced Pages. I don't think there's a single content or behavioural policy that hasn't been broken. The article is clearly being targeted by whackjobs and cranks. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So? That makes it different from ID? Note that using the term "wackjob" and "crank" requires assuming a stance about the content of the article... unless of course you are saying that pro-global warming folks can be wackjobs and cranks too. ;-) It will all sort itself out. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ling.Nut--
I must — however gently — take exception with your characterization of ChrisO as " very very much like a POV warrior." I consider his judgment to be impeccable.
--NBahn (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's OK. I'm chatting amicably. I was kinda involved in this issue in the beginning, but have since talked myself out of it.... And you could be right, and I could be wrong about Chris. But... a POV warrior does not look like a POV warrior to another warrior who is on the same side. To a warrior on the same side, a POV warrior looks like an editor of great wisdom.... Now, you'll think I'm calling you a POV warrior. Not really. I haven't noticed any of your edits. I am talking about human nature.. I was just saying, in Chris's case, it looks that way. Take it or leave it.Ling.Nut (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ling.Nut--
Open mindedness and hard nosedness are two distinct qualities. I support ChrisO's hard-nosed attitude because I trust him to be open minded (and yes, I do agree with all of the stands that he has taken that I am aware of). & that brings up an interesting topic: Does not NPOV constitute it's own POV? --NBahn (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I removed the ref tags for clarity. Hope that's OK. Answer: WP is just supposed to report what reliable sources say. No more. having said that, the battleground then moves to "Who defines which source is reliable?". Just look at the climategate talk page right now. Some POV warriors are yapping about how this source and that source are not reliable. Says who? I went to the (google cache of) the website in question, and saw tons of PhDs on the page's name list. Uhhhhhhh.... these people aren't reliable? Well, it's not impossible... but it's doubtful. More likely, they simply do not agree with the POV of the editors who are yapping that the source is unreliable. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the tobacco industry financed all sorts of research whose sole purpose was to create doubt in the public's mind about what the scientific consensus was. That's why I don't get involved in contentious issues on Misplaced Pages: The wiki-lawyering is often fast and furious (And speaking of which, isn't there some rule about fringe theories? If there is, then how would it apply in the issue of that university hacking incident?).
--NBahn (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If you forget a rule, essay or whatever, then just try to type WP: and then a key word from the rule, such as WP:FRINGE or WP:FUCK. The university hacking thing is an event, not a theory. It really happened; it isn't an exposition of a fringe theory. It's just that the event was a politically loaded one, so...Ling.Nut (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I see.
--NBahn (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If nothing else, it's a fascinating display of how determined some people are to create and live in an alternative reality. For instance, even though the UEA says the material was stolen and just about every reliable source refers to it being hacked from their server, a series of editors has deleted these facts simply because they don't like them (e.g. ) - they have no contrary sources, of course. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Chris, are you aware of WP:3RR? Please don't violate it in editing that article. I've seen quite a few reverts you've made just recently. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply when reverting BLP violations. Please see WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The section you cite doesn't say that 3RR doesn't apply when reverting BLP violations....--Heyitspeter (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. Please re-read it. "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." Clear enough, no? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't checked, but these edit summaries don't seem to refer to BLP violations:

• (cur) (prev) 09:04, 27 November 2009 ChrisO (talk | contribs) (34,861 bytes) (→Leaked documents: - rm yet more weaselling - this isn't "alleged", it's undisputed fact) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 09:02, 27 November 2009 ChrisO (talk | contribs) (34,879 bytes) (rm source duplication and fixed repetition) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 09:00, 27 November 2009 ChrisO (talk | contribs) (35,064 bytes) (rm duplication, add quantity) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 08:59, 27 November 2009 ChrisO (talk | contribs) (35,117 bytes) (rm more weaselling) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 08:57, 27 November 2009 ChrisO (talk | contribs) (35,372 bytes) (→Leaked documents: - rm weaselling - no "alleged" about it, it's undisputed by any reliable source) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 08:47, 27 November 2009 ChrisO (talk | contribs) (35,396 bytes) (→Reactions: - rm weasel wording, some copyedits) (undo)

Did I miss something? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you missed the fact that those aren't reversions; they're a series of copyedits made following a whole series of (sometimes bad) changes made by other editors overnight. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, at WP:3RR it says, A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part., and these don't look like "copy editing" but a disagreement over content, as discussed on the talk page. I'm not going to file a complaint about these. Please just tone it down. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please be polite in discussions

Please refrain from giving comments like this "Did A Crime (Hack) Actually Occur?: - reply to dumb question". Nsaa (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "reply to tendentious question", because it certainly is that, as well as being just plain dumb. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is Scibaby?

You left a note about Scibaby on my webpage...who is Scibaby? GardiaP (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Districts of Kosovo

Hi, Chris. Regarding this, tell me, the flags are removed because Kosovo status is disputed, if you are not familiar, see the Kosovo article. And those templates are for whole of the Kosovo, not just self proclaimed republic. Also, that republic does not have control over whole territory of Kosovo (North Kosovo). So, a flag of Republic of Kosovo is quite not NPOV. Also, Republic of Kosovo is recognised by 63 United Nations member states, and not by majority of the world. Can you, please, give me some advice about this? Under this circumstances, flag should be removed?

All best, Tadija (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please answer me, i really dont understand by what wiki rules flag of disputed region can be placed everywhere? Please, answer me. Tadija (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing material

Removing this Picture from an ongoing discussion is not proper. Since you are both an admin and a arb.com member I suppose you can delete the picture in question iff it's a copyright violation? Nsaa (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an arbcom member. :-) In any case, it's generally regarded as not being proper to delete something if you're an "involved party". -- ChrisO (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Then the picture should be restored on the talk page. No direct assumption can be made that this is not a fair use picture (if it should be in Misplaced Pages is another matter and is under discussion on the pictures talk page) Nsaa (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use pictures should never be used on talk pages - and there's good reason to believe that it doesn't even qualify as a fair use picture. You really need to read Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Image:Climategate.jpg

I removed the "{Di-orphaned fair use}" tag. At the time it WAS used in two articles. The template states, "Please remove this template if a reason for keeping this image has been provided, or it is still used in articles." I DID NOT REMOVE the tag for speedy deletion it was removed by user Tony Sidaway. Thanks. --Duchamps_comb MFA 19:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

3rr + Q

You're at 3rr. What's the POV I'm pushing? -Atmoz (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Two problems with your edit: first, the existing wording specifically reflects the source, while your wording does not - it's your own spin on it (hence OR); second, "also known as" makes it seem that the alternate term is a general term for it, which it clearly isn't (hence POV and OR). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not my spin, nor my OR. See . Would "...sometimes referred to as..." be better? -Atmoz (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree completely with your blog post! I appreciate your efforts to find an alternative formulation, but it's not really up to us to find a wording that we like - we have to reflect what the sources say. If you can find a reliable source that discusses how the term is used (widely? narrowly? often? sometimes?) then please, by all means, cite that. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatedoor

Yeah, I know how it is with edit conflicts.

But I get irritated when there's this strict adherence to rules over common sense. Given that everyone apparently agrees that "Climategate" is widely used, why are we arguing? The main point of the rules is to provide guidance when there's a dispute over what the truth is. NPOV, OR, RS, etc, are all motivated by this problem, a problem that apparently doesn't exist in this case. Evercat (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Jones e-mail? I didn't add it?

You stated in the discussion Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Jones_e-mail that "Nsaa just added this bit to the article: ... ". I have only done 4 edits to the article Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident since at least 27. November, and in these four edits I only moved references down to the ref. section (i.e. completely technical work). Do I miss something? Nsaa (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably misread the edit history. It gets pretty confusing with the volume of edits on that article. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem! Just a bit curious by the "allegation" :-) Nsaa (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Billions

The contrarian in my said "But what it they invent an elixir of immortality tomorrow? Would billions still die?" Then I thought about how much it would probably cost, and how long it would take to ramp up production, and I realised that yes, sadly, even that wouldn't stop billions of deaths over the next century. Said, isn't it? Guettarda (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Your help in unblocking my account is noted and appreciated. Wejer (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate change in the United Kingdom‎

A new item for your watchlist. An article started today.

In November 2009 there was an e-mail hacking incident where thousands of emails and other documents were leaked on the internet. The contents of some of the documents were used to show that climate research was being manipulated to make a strong case for anthropogenic climate change.

I think that's egregiously false. Your mileage may vary, but I think it's an extraordinary thing to put into an article on global warming in the UK, not to mention that it's a suspicious time to start it. Me and my suspicious mind, obviously I need some perspective. --TS 21:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Mice and bits of balsa wood

"Citation needed"

Indeed. I should be indef blocked for my blatant BLP vio. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If you ever find those prodigal mice, let me know - they'd probably do a better job than GB... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Words fail you? Let me help

I can think of several although on second thought, I'd probably be blocked. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 23:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading somewhere about one-half of the U.S. population disbelieving evolution (and ipso facto Earth's 4.5 billion year age). Truly, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.....<br. />--NBahn (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeppers, we're a wasteful country, no doubt. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Climategate" Edits

Hello! Two things I'd like to discuss about this article: 1) Hacking. Has it been substatiated that the information was hacked? I maintained "stolen" everywhere, because that was corfirmed, and put in ill-chosed "allege" in places. I was in the midst of changing the "allege" words to "apparent" when you stripped them out. Yeah, allege was bad on me. But the current reading seems to take the hacking story as proven. What do you think is the right way to handle that? 2) Specific individuals quoted in the summary. "Various allegations" is being presented against "prominent scientists" in the summary, which seems categorically POV. I tried to find a wording that presented the dispute, and what each side's position was in the summary, and left details to the main body. Do you disagree?

In any event, I won't edit the article further. My main objection has been resolved. Mark (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Hi. We don't know each other from Adam, but in the last half-hour, you've accused me of "POV falsification of sources", "the usual whitewashing and weaselling", and "disrupting" an article, and apparently even identified me as a troublemaker to another editor! That's just rude. I'm happy for you to disagree with my edits, and I'm more than happy to have a discussion based on sources, and quite content to be pointed at prior discussions on the matter, but WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL really do go a long way. — Matt Crypto 17:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

You just called my editing disruptive and accused me of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. However, I did a single edit in this article in few days - hardly disruptive (you are doing tens per day, BTW). Prior to the edit, I have extensively discussed the proposal for long time. For convenience of the opponents, I have even numbered my points 1 to 5. None of them were refuted, as far as I know; discussion died down. I made the change, you reverted it without any discussion, and threatened me. I think that your behavior is disruptive, please stop it. I am going to revert your change - please explain in the talk page first why the quote of a climatologist on the computer security is relevant. Dimawik (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have already explained it in detail. If you persist I will press for you to be blocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again, there are 5 numbered points in my reasoning; please point to a single detailed rebuttal on any one. Dimawik (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I did report you for the 3RR. Dimawik (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Blog usage policy

Thanks, I am aware of WP:BLP, but the article is about the fringe conspiracy theory about 'Birthers'. If the same rules apply to talking about living persons in other articles, then the section you removed should be reworded. The Week was used as a source, which isn't a blog but a weekly magazine. The Atlantic is also a media publication, and Andrew Sullivan is an editor, published author and journalist. Media Matters for America is also a media outlet. All of these sources fall into the category described in the WP:BLP here:

Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.

Or at least that was my belief. So perhaps the wording should be different in the entry, but it should not be completely removed. DD2K (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I will leave this previous post up, but I will withdraw my support for Andrew Sullivan as a reliable source, at the very least concerning anything to do with Sarah Palin and the conspiracy regarding her son. My apologies for that bit of ignorance. I had no idea that he was promoting that crazy stuff. DD2K (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Flegelpuss

He's back. This something fishy about the way somebody started a vote on renaming the CRU hacking incident article and suddenly he and a number of other editors showed up to pile on support. --TS 03:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy ChrisO's Day!

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid the off-topic soapboxing

For example here.

There's a lot of material on that talk page, too much to keep up with, and it doesn't help to add pontifications unrelated to the article content. I think the section should be collapsed, as there isn't a single word devoted to improving the article. Do you disagree?--SPhilbrickT 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

YouTube source on Monckton page

I can appreciate the rule about not using YouTube videos as sources when they are simply one person's subjective propaganda, but in this case it was actual footage of the incident in question. The Guardian article reporting that event (which simply relied on said YouTube video as its sole source!) had a poor transcript which introduced significant accuracies. So in this instance, YouTube was in fact a superior source. --Archstanton (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

^exactly what this guy said! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.225.71 (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with Archstanton. Youtube was a clear and transparent proof of the situation unlike Guardian. Arguing that Youtube is a poor source is ridiculous. Seriously, with the similar attitude Misplaced Pages is even more poor source. 80.1.163.15 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't make the policy. Take it up on the reliable sources noticeboard if you don't believe me. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I can clearly see that the Guardian source is absolutely bias. I don't trust any page that is edited by ChrisO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankhtify (talk • contribs) 01:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Tip of the iceberg

Hi, Chris. I responded to a comment you left at User talk:Toddst1#Block_evasion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Netzarim Junction Picture

Dear Chris, I uploaded the picture of Netzarim Junction. It is called Netzarim_Junction_south_corner_joint_patrol_outpost.jpg. Thank you for making it look so much nicer! I might have more pictures, may be even of the main IDF post on the north corner of Netzarim Junction, hopefully I get around to rummaging through my old pictures during Christmas and upload some more--Soylentyellow (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Iraq map basra.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Iraq map basra.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How much do you know about the Yom Kippur War?

I know nowhere near the amount of information necessary in order to contribute anything meaningful to the discussion. I respectfully direct your attention to this comment.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I know the Israelis won, but that's about the limit of my knowledge. It's not my area of interest or expertise, I'm afraid. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage

Hi again! Just so you know, Battlefield Earth is a disambiguation page. ceranthor 21:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So it is! You'd think I'd know that (d'oh!). Thanks for spotting the deliberate mistake (ahem). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, you're welcome. Having read IGb, which was beautiful, I wanted to read some other FAs, and... well... ;) ceranthor 22:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

FAQ for "Climate Research Unit e-mail hacking incident"

Why should templates not be used here, period? Can you direct me to the relevant policy regarding this? Otherwise I'll re-add the template. --Heyitspeter (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Whitehall large.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Whitehall large.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock 09:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Mail

You got it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your draft on history of Gibraltar

Hi Chris, as said in the talk page, thanks for your effort. On the other hand, please forgive me if I edited your draft. It was only to activate a link. Sorry. On the other hand, I've read the intro and have some comments. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:A Quest For Knowledge. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris, please stop inserting unsourced inflammatory material against living people. As I already pointed out, WP:BLP applies even to talk pages. I've recommended in the aforementioned discussion that if you continue to restore this material that you be blocked from editing the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I was about to ask for you to be blocked for removing talk page posts under bogus rationales. Now knock it off and grow up. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Cristopher Walter Monckton

To “ChrisO”

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: your wholesale deletions of my changes to this serially inaccurate biographical entry

I should be grateful if the appropriate arbitration procedure could be activated to consider the appropriateness of your recent wholesale reversals of my recent changes to this serially inaccurate biographical entry.

My request to the arbiters is that you and your colleague Dabelstein-Petersen should in future be barred from having any input to this entry, on grounds of repeatedly-demonstrated prejudice and malice towards the subject of the entry.

Please notify me of the procedure for obtaining arbitration in respect of your tampering, and that of Dabelstein-Petersen, with this entry – a tampering which, as I shall now demonstrate, does not conform to Misplaced Pages’s principles.

I draw the arbiters’ attention to the following comparison between my proposed revisions and your wholesale reversals thereof, and invite them to adjudicate on each of my proposed revisions.

I corrected the entry to list the subject’s current occupation, business consultant, first. Yet you reverted to the inaccurate statement that he is, first and foremost, a “journalist”. Yet it is a matter of record that he has not been a journalist since 1992, when he left the Evening Standard. Source: Who’s Who. On studying the history of your revisions to this entry, you have repeatedly reverted to the inaccurate statement that the subject is a journalist, inferentially with the intention of implying that as a mere journalist, rather than an eminent business consultant, he ought not to have dared to express opinions contrary to the prejudices of Misplaced Pages on the subject of “global warming”. I note that the subject’s entry began to be tampered with when he first publicly stated his disagreement with Misplaced Pages’s prejudice on this subject – a prejudice which your own previous comments on his entry demonstrate you fervently support. It appears to me that it is this particular prejudice on your part, and on that of Dabelstein-Petersen, that has led to your repeated and generally malevolent tampering with this entry.

In respect of the subject’s father, I added the words “late Major-General”, which appear to have been dropped in error at some stage in previous editing. It is a matter of record that the Second Viscount Monckton of Brenchley was a Major-General, and that he has died: see his Misplaced Pages page. Here and time and again elsewhere, your habit of wholesale deletion of carefully-considered amendments to make this entry accurate and complete is unacceptable, and must not be permitted in future.

In respect of the subject’s parents, his education, and his marriage, I had added some harmless details of the sort that customarily appear in such entries, such as his father’s decorations, some brief background on his mother and his wife, and some details of his educational qualifications, all of which are easily verifiable in Who’s Who. Yet your wholesale reversal of my edit wiped all of this detail out, without the slightest reason. In respect of the subject’s early career, I had added some details of his work that are easily verifiable in Who’s Who and in other published sources. These, too, were arbitrarily deleted by your wholesale reversal of my edits. I had corrected the false statement that the subject “has referred to himself as a Peer of the House of Lords”. The subject has never referred to himself as a “Peer of the House of Lords”, for there is no such thing. He is, whether you like it or not, a Peer of the Realm, having successfully proved his title to succeed his late father to the satisfaction of the Privileges Committee of the House of Lords, which will verify this fact if you bother to check. He is, therefore, a member of the House of Lords, but (in terms of the House of Lords Act 1999) without the right to sit or vote. I had corrected this error, adding that on two occasions the subject had unsuccessfully stood for election to vacant seats in the House of Lords. Even if you have a reference that states that the subject “has referred to himself as ‘a Peer of the House of Lords’”, that reference is inaccurate.

On the subject’s views about “global warming”, I shall begin with the general comment that there is far too much detail, most of it apparently intended to cast the subject’s views in the least favourable possible light regardless of the truth. The sheer quantity of detail on this matter unbalances the entry, and reflects the prejudices chiefly of you and Dabelstein-Petersen, together with those of the now-disbarred Connolley. The first of my edits in this section corrected the inaccurate statement that an article by the subject in the Sunday Telegraph of 5 November 2006 had “disputed whether global warming is manmade”. In fact, the article stated plainly that, as a result of human activities, some warming was to be expected. Your wholesale reversal of my edits restored the inaccuracy, in a manner calculated unreasonably to reflect discredit upon the subject.

I corrected the entry to state that the subject had acted as an expert witness in the London High Court case that found multiple serious errors in Al Gore’s movie. This is evident from the case papers, which include a substantial expert testimony from the subject. Your wholesale reversal of my edits deleted this correction, reverting to the previous formulation that he had merely “played a key role”. The subject drafted the 80-page scientific testimony that won the case.

I corrected an error in the entry to the effect that the subject had funded distribution of The Great Global Warming Swindle to schools in England. It is a matter of record that no such distribution was made, and that a journalist on The Independent had simply made this allegation up. Your wholesale reversal of my edits removed this necessary correction.

I corrected the entry to remove a point of view that runs counter to Misplaced Pages’s policy on points of view in what are supposed to be factual entries. The entry had said that the subject had recently undertaken a North American speaking tour to “campaign against” the UN climate conference in Copenhagen. Several of the subject’s speeches on the tour are available online, and it is clear from those speeches that he was not “campaigning against” the conference: instead, as I correctly stated in one of my edits, he was explaining the shortcomings of the UN’s climate science.

I removed several negative comments about the subject’s climate movie, and about his revelation that the draft Treaty of Copenhagen proposed to establish an unelected world “government” with control over the commanding heights of the world economy and over all markets worldwide. There were just as many positive comments – for instance, in Canada’s National Post, and a positive comment on Lord Monckton’s movie by Professor Larry Gould – but only the negative comments were included. At this point, either a balance of comments must be included, or no comments at all. For the sake of keeping the entry to a less disproportionate length, I had opted for the second course of action in respect of Lord Monckton’s speaking tour, and the first in respect of his movie. Your prejudiced reversal of all of my edits restored the manifestly unbalanced and unfair selection of critical comments only. On any view, this is unacceptable. I had corrected the entry to reflect the fact that the subject’s contribution to the learned newsletter Physics and Society was a substantial, reviewed paper, not a mere “article”. Your reversal of my edits inconsistently left the word “paper” in one place, “article” in others.

I had corrected the entry to point out that the American Physical Society had been compelled to remove from above the online version of the paper the assertions – for which it had no evidence – that the Council of the APS disagreed with the paper, and that the world’s scientific community disagreed with it. It is a matter of record that the disclaimer was altered in this respect, after several Fellows of the APS had written to its President about the matter. Your reversals of my edits was calculated to have the effect of restoring these manifest inaccuracies, to the unreasonable detriment of the subject’s reputation.

I had corrected the entry to point out that the paper had been reviewed in detail by Professor Alvin Saperstein of Wayne State University. Since the Professor’s review comments have been published, this fact is undeniable. Yet the entry, after your restoration of numerous inaccuracies, now again states that the paper had not been reviewed. This is unacceptable.

I had removed a statement that one Smith, a paid employee of the American Physical Society, had identified “125 errors” in the subject’s paper. This statement contravenes the very policy that you dare to cite against me, that sources should be independent and verifiable. The list of “125 errors” appears on a campaigning website run by Smith himself: it was not reviewed: and it has not been independently verified. Indeed, several of Smith’s own supporters, on his website, have said that the vast majority of the “errors” are not errors at all. Here, you have allowed your malice and prejudice to cause you to overlook the rule that you have – albeit inappropriately – cited against me. This is unacceptable in a trusted editor of Misplaced Pages, and is one of the reasons why I am asking the arbiters to remove you from this role, particularly in respect of the subject’s entry.

On the subject’s published opinion – expressed during the early stages of the HIV epidemic – that the standard public-health measures against new, fatal, incurable infections should be followed, I had made several corrections. First, I had pointed out that the subject had expressed this view following a visit to the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases. What I could not say, for there is no published source, is that the chief HIV researcher at USAMRIID had begged the subject to publish, because they had been unable to persuade the Surgeon-General of the US to follow the standard protocol. I had also corrected the entry to reveal the UNAIDS figures on how many had died and how many had become infected since the subject’s article on the matter had been published. For the sake of balance, this material should have been left in, particularly since it was properly sourced. Yet your indiscriminate reversal of my edits deleted these changes, again in a manner calculated to do maximal but wholly unjustifiable damage to the subject’s reputation. This is unacceptable in a Misplaced Pages reviewer.

Standing the foregoing, I should be grateful if all of the corrections that I have mentioned at points 1-15 above were made to the subject’s entry, and if ChrisO and Dabelstein-Petersen were in future barred from tampering with this entry in any way. In my opinion, the arbiters should also consider whether either of these two is fit to be permitted to edit Misplaced Pages entries at all. bullwhip (talk) 19:17, December 24 2009 (PST)

Climategate talk page

Please don't disturb the talkpage on Climategate removing the pressmulti template. I considder it outright vandalism, but I'm not interested in an edit war. Why didnt you take it to the blp noticeboard? Just reverting my last edit with a attack on Dalingpole (in your edit comment)?Nsaa (talk) 12:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppetry? SPI?

Can you come up with some reasonable evidence for this article and the sockpuppetry? For instance, to link the IPs and user to scibaby? tedder (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be Scibaby, but I suspect it may actually be the article's subject himself - he has previously been blocked for aggressive sockpuppetry, legal threats and violations of the BLP policy. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

climategate scientific impact

I left you hanging on the 22nd and just revisited your request for links on scientific impact of climategate. Since there was a delay, I'm pasting a copy here so my reply doesn't get lost in the rush.

The 160 year review. The Darwin zero bit is indeed confined to the blogs for now but that doesn't mean there's no scientific impact, merely no Misplaced Pages impact. The IEA report isn't peer reviewed, but lack of peer review does not mean no scientific impact.

No need to discuss it further. You'll believe it or not but I wanted to be fair. TMLutas (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Hell yeah on this. Disgraceful POV fork with a scandalous title. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As the nominator for deletion, I have to say that blanking or redirecting the article while discussion is ongoing probably isn't helpful (though I certainly agree with the sentiment). The atmosphere surrounding these articles is contentious enough already. Just let the AfD play out. Taking the high road makes the other guy look worse by comparison. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think an article with the word "scandal" in it should be allowed to exist once it has been "discovered". I also think Wikidemon's complaint below is a bit cheeky, considering he is the author of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

December, 2009

• Please don't make edits like this one. The claim that this is a BLP violation seems farfetched, particularly given that there is little content at the article that is not the subject of contributions of many editors in some form or another in another article. Please do not take it upon yourself to blank entire articles that have considerable support and are under discussion at AfD. I trust you will not edit war on this - if you are truly concerned you can always take this to BLP/N or AN/I. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Revert strikeout

Hey -- I reverted your strike out of the IP comments . I find nothing that suggests they cannot chime in during AfD !votes. Please point me to where that is stated if you get a chance. Thanks jhe_iv (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

shame on you! You will never change my country' s name! You are all fucking christians! You are the virus of this world. I don' t accept you are fair! you never was never will be! FUCK YOU! Sultaniman (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Buchholz-57 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).